We've done this too many times now

[Alexander Nicholi]

My husband brought up another thing I hadn?t thought of before, yesterday, and it?s pretty scary how many portents surrounding public education point to this. I didn?t fully consider it before because of how nasty the idea of its execution is, but now I have reconsidered it.

It is likely that these ?nationwide protests? are being curated for the interests and positions of the faculty in charge of the students, so that viewpoints congruent with those in charge are promoted, and other viewpoints held by students which are not congruent are suppressed and shut out of view. In the context of school shootings, viewpoints supporting Democrat-hoisted positions like added restriction and regulation on firearms are brought to the frontlines of everyone?s attention, while student viewpoints advocating otherwise are hindered and suppressed through the mechanisms of authoritarian extremist thought and groupthink.

Why is this likely? Well, we have noticed several steep, downward trends in the execution of American public education in the last twenty to thirty years.

1. Security: School facilities are more often built in secluded, rural satellites away from the cities they service, so students have no inclination to leave school without permission (otherwise known as ditching). They keep armed policemen guarding all points of entry and exit for the entire school day and school year, and fence in the remainder of the school?s perimeter to make guarding feasible.
2. Social: Behavioural conditioning in primary schooling comes before curriculum in priority, and the approach to this is downright damning. Whether it?s keeping your hands off the brick walls, being micromanaged and shoved into single-file lines with your peers, given strict daily scheduling for everything down to bathroom breaks and having no tolerance for deviation from that schedule, or being deliberately shuffled around both teachers and schools each year to make it very unlikely that you?ll end up with any of your friends from last year in the same class? approaches like these are more reminiscient of prison camp management than school policy. It hurts the children?s prospects for socialising amongst each other, and the default answer to socialising with teachers is a resounding no. After all, they?re the ones controlling everything you do during the day, so even if they?re polite the relationship is fundamentally based on subordination.
3. Academic: When looking at the curriculum used in schools, you?ll run into a big brick wall reinforced by copyright and IP law. All of the testing materials and textbooks are plastered with copyright notices and teachers are required to abide by NDAs to protect questions about how many apples Johnny might have. Students who bring standardised tests home for any reason are automatically failed. It?s designed to stop the public from knowing anything about the contents of these tests, and the only reasons imaginable for that are, interestingly enough, in the tests you can?t see.

In summary, security has been brought in by the truckload, socialisation is a mess, and academic pursuit is bound and gagged in red tape and threats of contract breach lawsuits. Something is fundamentally fucked up here.

So where does student protesting come into this? Well, you may be able to answer that by asking a question: with these long-winding and consistent authoritarian encroachments on public school, how would there be any room for students to suddenly start ?defying the authorities? and ?walking out?? Why would people who have sunk their careers, decades of time and billions of tax dollars into controlling these children one day wake up and decide they have First Amendment rights that they ought to be able to exercise? This sounds about as reasonable as former Facebook executives waking up and deciding the company they used to work for is evil and decide to lead an online crusade about it all. It doesn?t add up.

It isn?t necessarily to say that these students aren?t protesting about what they think. Really, it has more to do with the output of the whole endeavour and the notion that some kids are saying things those in charge don?t wanna hear and are silenced for it. Twenty years of work to turn schools into prisons makes it entirely too easy for them to do that, and publicly pass it off as some kind of flashpoint about gun control. So, in this way, students are being manipulated using crowd psychology, in that what they say doesn?t ultimately matter, they?re not really on the stage, but it?s adding a much-desired appearance of popular support and legitimacy to people who are. And if that?s what?s happening here?because I really wish it wasn?t looking this way?then God help us all.

 

[Nah]

thought I'd just throw this into here, in case people were interested: https://www.njsp.org/njgunstat/

the governor about a month ago or so signed an order for the creation of this, and a couple of days ago it went up

there's not much, it just has April right now and it's just 4 things, but it's all in nice images that are easy to digest

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LDSman]

thought I'd just throw this into here, in case people were interested: https://www.njsp.org/njgunstat/

the governor about a month ago or so signed an order for the creation of this, and a couple of days ago it went up

there's not much, it just has April right now and it's just 4 things, but it's all in nice images that are easy to digest

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The information doesn't say really anything though.

For example, the source of crime guns doesn't say when the guns were purchased legally plus it fails to mention if the guns were stolen.

Shooting victims doesn't state if the victims were criminal behaviors at the time. Self defense?

I do think it's interesting that the CDC didn't release surveys in the 90s that supported defensive gun use stats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...e-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/amp/

 

[Nah]

The information doesn't say really anything though.

For example, the source of crime guns doesn't say when the guns were purchased legally plus it fails to mention if the guns were stolen.

Shooting victims doesn't state if the victims were criminal behaviors at the time. Self defense?

True. Was expecting a little more myself really. Maybe we'll see if they do more in the coming months since this was their first time.

 

[Esper]

There was another school shooting today. Luckily for the people of Santa Fe, Texas, they live in a red state, represented by Republicans (including, previously, noted libertarian Ron Paul) so all those authoritarian, liberal ideas about gun control won't stop the good guys with the guns from protecting the citizens of their town.

Oh wait

 

[Vragon2.0]

There was another school shooting today. Luckily for the people of Santa Fe, Texas, they live in a red state, represented by Republicans (including, previously, noted libertarian Ron Paul) so all those authoritarian, liberal ideas about gun control won't stop the good guys with the guns from protecting the citizens of their town.

Oh wait

dude please, this is a debate place not a petty pot shot area. But it's fair if you bring an example so I'll ask these things.

1) Who was the shooter and the history of said shooter?
2) What school did it happen at and was it having issues?
3) Was there any motive or things we can track the instances from happening?
4) What type of gun was used and how did the person get it?
5) What was the shooters family life or things outside school in general?

and more I won't go into.
Like, I think it's fair to say that you're hellbent on thinking that gun control is a must and aren't even wanting to actual converse about it (kinda like when you made that comment regretting brining it up because others with different opinions brought their stuff up and things to back it up. That goes to all sides BTW)

If you're going to claim that something doesn't work well, then I'd ask you bring up a base and stuff to support it. I don't want to sound like a dick, but I honestly get a feeling of spite from that comment. I'm fine with debating you as much as the others, but doing that at some group with a good amount of stretches and assuming that everything will be perfect if "the good guys" rules are enforced, then everything will be fine. It's almost like there are plenty of people that have the intent to do harm.

I suggest you either bring something to the table and construct an argument, or at least try and understand where the other side is coming from. That's something important to a debate and overall finding a solution. Understand where both sides are coming from so a proper solution can be found.

 

[Bay]

1) Who was the shooter and the history of said shooter?
2) What school did it happen at and was it having issues?
3) Was there any motive or things we can track the instances from happening?
4) What type of gun was used and how did the person get it?
5) What was the shooters family life or things outside school in general?

So, gonna answer some of those concerns, but I might still miss some information there so if anyone wants to add this go right ahead.

1) Shooter is Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 17 years old attending Santa Fe High School. So far no info on him having a criminal history
2) As mentioned before, Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas. Concerning issues the guy has with the school, nothing specific yet.
3) Not sure the exact motive, but there were reports of him having a shirt that says, "Born to Kill" and having journals with him wanting to do a shooting and then commit suicide. There's also someone reported him wearing trench coats that he could use to hide a gun easily, but nothing came out of that.
4) A shotgun and a .38 revolver from his father
5) Not much info on those except his father having legally own the guns. Also his interest at one point joining the Marine Corps.

So, while I won't react the same way as Esper, I do want to say it's really really ironic several days ago Chidish Gambino did the music video "This Is America" and now this happens. I truly think if the Flordia school shooting didn't spark any change in gun control from the government, then I lost hope.

 

[Vragon2.0]

So, while I won't react the same way as Esper, I do want to say it's really really ironic several days ago Chidish Gambino did the music video "This Is America" and now this happens. I truly think if the Flordia school shooting didn't spark any change in gun control from the government, then I lost hope.

First, thanks for the info and answering the questions, second I think that the shootings should spark an in depth look into many of the ways these things happen and what leads into these factors. I think it's important to look deep into the issues and connections into these things to see a good action to take.

I have qualms with both pro-gun peeps and anti-gun peeps in the way both are handling this situation and actually looking into the issues. I don't think there are only two options nor do I think one option is good for the entire country of America as a whole cause it is made up of several states with their own cultures and perspectives.

So if anything, I want a real discussion to happen where we all try to find a solution rather than leaping at each other's throats demanding our ways be done or no action taken not considering anyone outside our own perspective and ideals.

Also, I don't think the government plans to do anything really good in this situation. it's obvious congress and their stuff all have their own agenda that they want to push, see the Syrian Missle Strike for example. The simple fact is the populas of America is far more reasonable and dare I say "actually discussing" than the government. It's a qualm I also have with peeps saying that it's all "America" when it's made up of 50 states with their own cultures and people and a government that isn't doing jack squat for either. It honestly comes down to the populist opinion that everyone here is either one extreme or another, when in actuality plenty of the population just wants an ideal solution found and looking into it. Not all mind you, but it is better than just jumping in the dark expecting whatever thing put in there to work as good as "perfection".

 

[LDSman]

All of my arguments against more useless gun control laws still stand. You want to stop school shootings? Either get rid of gun free zones or harden the schools so that no one gets in without being searched.

 

[Sektor]

Nothing will come of this. Ever time I ever poke around here is to just gawk at the petty bickering. I have yet to receive any concrete ideas on how to even change or even push gun control.

Even if we did what these folks had wanted and handed in every single last scary 'assault rifle-15' (if you think AR stands for 'assault rifle' stand up and walk to the library) the most recent school shooting would have still occured with a revolver and a shotgun.

This is also ignoring the fact that many proponents to gun control (i.e. theft) argue that students shouldn't need to walk through metal detectors or have cops in schools.

What?

Put metal detectors in schools. What I mean by that is provide a full service (police, metal detectors, K-9 if need be). By far the most shootings of this caliber (no pun intended) happen in zones where signs are slapped everywhere stating 'gun free zone'. Signs do nothing. They never have and they never will.

We put metal detectors in courthouses, airports, police stations, banks, ports, military bases, prisons and more. Why can't we put metal detectors in school? The answer is always "makes the school a prison". Why not a bank? Aren't children supposed to be the future? Would you invest your future by stuffing them underneath a mattress or investing and opening a CD for future use?

Show me your data. Where is the data? Who created the data? Was it the FBI? The DOJ? The CDC? DOD? No? Without backing your claims with proverbial brick and mortar your arguments fall flat. Please find data that counts homicides, not gun deaths. Gun deaths count suicides and as such, cannot be prevented by taking away guns (the US is behind Japan in suicide rates for example. No guns there).

I've been trying to coax a somewhat sensible approach to the gun issue debate but all I get is petty answers and pointed fingers.

I hate criminals. I despise murderers and rapists and whatnot. I don't defend the actions of any, but will defend the many from the actions of few.

I don't respect feelings as much as I do facts. If you can shut me up with some factual data from a credible source i.e. a governmental entity that devotes time and energy into collecting this type of data, go for it. I dare ya. I would gamble (and I dare say I am a savvy gamblin' man) that all data you find points in the reverse. The only caveat to this is these numbers must be obtained from the US.

We're not going to play the 'Antarctica has fewer shootings, because they have no guns' game. It's intellectually naive (dishonest) to try and justify changes for one country, that may or may not work, utilizing data from another country.

 

[Esper]

snippiness

Look, I'm sorry if you didn't like how I presented my viewpoints. I'm using some dark humor to point out the absurdity of the position that lax gun laws make us safe. If you don't want to be persuaded that's fine. There was nothing disrespectful in my post toward any member here so I don't see any issue or call for you to say I'm hellbent and all of that.

Really though, I do think that at this point the burden of proof is on people who are against gun control since we're seeing daily how much gun violence there is in America and the biggest differences between America and similar countries when it comes to gun violence is the relative lack of it elsewhere and the the lack of gun control in America. Like, I shouldn't have to continue to provide more evidence at this point. The evidence is all the dead people at the hands of gun violence.

 

[Nah]

Look, I'm sorry if you didn't like how I presented my viewpoints. I'm using some dark humor to point out the absurdity of the position that lax gun laws make us safe. If you don't want to be persuaded that's fine. There was nothing disrespectful in my post toward any member here so I don't see any issue or call for you to say I'm hellbent and all of that.

Really though, I do think that at this point the burden of proof is on people who are against gun control since we're seeing daily how much gun violence there is in America and the biggest differences between America and similar countries when it comes to gun violence is the relative lack of it elsewhere and the the lack of gun control in America. Like, I shouldn't have to continue to provide more evidence at this point. The evidence is all the dead people at the hands of gun violence.

i don't think that his problem is so much your tone or presentation as it is your refusal to engage in discussion on the topic beyond " but look at all the dead people tho"

but that's sort of the problem with most major social issues these days—people on both sides' general unwillingness to have a proper discussion and problem solve

i understand that it can be tiring, but that's life for ya and it's just internet discussion anyway

 

[Vragon2.0]

[Might as well as say this, despite me sound a bit harsh in this, I do not think ill of the person I respond to. I rarely hold them as anything less after such a thing nor do I judge often for I'm flawed too. If I sound harsh or quite mean I understand, but I ask you do read to the end.]

With that out the way,
Oho this is going to be fun.

Look, I'm sorry if you didn't like how I presented my viewpoints.

Tell me where I say that? I said this is a debate place not a pot shot area. and regarding that,

I'm using some dark humor to point out the absurdity of the position that lax gun laws make us safe.

I'm sorry, but I believe I responded to "sarcasm". I don't have issues with dark humor at all, (I can say that text is hard to discern tone, but I'm pretty sure the sentence structure presented a sarcastic tone). The issue I had was it being a pot shot only, without a proper backing to a point. You can call joke all you want, the thing it there was a point attached to it that I addressed.

If you don't want to be persuaded that's fine.

I suppose, by persuaded you mean agree with you. Look, the thing is I'm more or less the commentator in this debate. I mainly right now am pointing out flaws in arguments I see since well JDJacket, LDSman, Nah and others have given sources up for people to read and they can arguably debate their points better with sources than me. I'm critiquing your argument, rather than just giving my own opinion.

[My reply to your second to most recent post]
If you're going to claim that something doesn't work well, then I'd ask you bring up a base and stuff to support it.
---
I suggest you either bring something to the table and construct an argument, or at least try and understand where the other side is coming from. That's something important to a debate and overall finding a solution. Understand where both sides are coming from so a proper solution can be found.

And the times I was harsh, were in regards to my assessment on how you were behaving. What you seem to not get is that when I critique your argument, I don't necessarily share my own thoughts, because shocker, I'm on your argument. Your points, your base, your tennis field. I haven't disclosed my opinion on gun control too much in this thread whereas you have made it abundantly clear you are for it. And instead of coming up with counters and new points you seem to cherrypick individual cases and seem to think that adds to your points. Which, sorry, it doesn't unless you link it to a pattern that can be a base and evidence of what you have.

There was nothing disrespectful in my post toward any member here so I don't see any issue or call for you to say I'm hellbent and all of that.

Love, the strawman you sent my way so I can burn it. I believe you're referring to this.

Like, I think it's fair to say that you're hellbent on thinking that gun control is a must and aren't even wanting to actual converse about it (kinda like when you made that comment regretting brining it up because others with different opinions brought their stuff up and things to back it up. That goes to all sides BTW)

and/or this

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I honestly get a feeling of spite from that comment. I'm fine with debating you as much as the others, but doing that at some group with a good amount of stretches and assuming that everything will be perfect if "the good guys" rules are enforced, then everything will be fine.

When did I say you were being disrespectful? The whole "pot shot" at some group with a good amount of stretches was my critique of your little "joke" and the impressions I got from it. I didn't say it was downright disrespectful nor that it was bad that it was, I was addressing how I thought it was out of spite due to no one listening and how I'd rather you debate than using that alone as your base.


The "hellbent" comment was in regards to your own pushing narrative that doesn't address what anyone else is saying. You can keep trucking on all you want, but until you refute the stuff others have brought, you won't get far. Scientific theory needs only one margin of disproof against it to put it into more question than it was prior. Unless that is addressed, it cannot be treated as fact. Same goes for your points and whatnot. Refute the claims and counter the points.

Really though

minor nitpick here, but this phrase honestly is overdone and frankly isn't the best one to use when talking to someone seriously.

I do think that at this point the burden of proof is on people who are against gun control since we're seeing daily how much gun violence there is in America and the biggest differences between America and similar countries when it comes to gun violence is the relative lack of it elsewhere and the the lack of gun control in America.

First off,
Citation f******* needed,
second I do believe there are enough stuff supplied in this thread you can look at to wet your whistle. Frankly, I find it sad that you think evidence should be brought to you instead of, you know, going to the links they supply. Like, it honestly aggrivates me the lazy aspects of expecting everyone to cater to your "wants" in regards to evidence instead of either going to their sources they site or looking up the other sides argument yourself. Broadening your view on the topic makes you more fluent in it as well as gives you a birds eye view of the methods and prospects of you and your opponent's sides.

Like, I shouldn't have to continue to provide more evidence at this point.

Oh, yes your wonderful evidence.

Okay, so in recent years, people at concerts, schools, churches, and other places have been shot at and killed. Even congressmen have been shot at and some killed. In the past even presidents have been shot at (and some killed). What then do you think would have to happen before America changes its attitude toward guns?

This is obviously a response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida where at the moment 17 people have been killed. Read more about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226

Wow, you can recount historical events and current events regarding shootings, now tell me how America is so obviously fu***** up with this to the point where their currently instated (and sometimes not followed) laws are failing the general public? Can you perhaps show some statistics or something other things than just your word and one article to BBC on a shooting after Parkland?

[in response to my first post to you]

[first was an answer to a question I asked]
The attitude toward guns, i.e., gun laws, gun accessibility, and general feelings and attitudes regarding guns.

[second was a twisting the tables on LDSman's comment]
Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those victims of gun violence in Australia, Japan, England, and elsewhere. When will the senseless violence end?

Did you forget the evidence at this part oh wait, it probably is further down the road. Saving the best for last and all.

[in response to my follow up regarding how you didn't answer my question and a presumtion on what you could mean]

The viewpoint that guns make us safer. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns don't make us safer. And please don't anyone ask for me to provide the proof just so you can ignore it. I'm not falling for that tactic. The evidence is readily available. Just google "gun violence statistics" and steer away from political websites.

Also, the viewpoint that guns are a right, which is a conflation of the right to defend oneself with the above misconception, i.e., that guns are the best way to protect oneself.

Okay, no evidence here at the moment. I mean, you say there's evidence, but so far haven't showed anything save for...news...on a shooting....okay but probably later.

[Responding to Nah's two questions.]

a) The states with least strict gun purchasing laws have the highest gun death ratio to population.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

For example, the 5 highest gun death rates were (per 100,000 people, based on 2016 data): Alaska (23.3), Alabama (21.5), Louisiana (21.3), Mississippi (19.9), and Oklahoma (19.6). The lowest were Connecticut (4.6), Hawaii (4.5), New York (4.4), Rhode Island (4.1), and Massachusetts (3.4).

b) Bump stocks are parts that can be added to a semi-automatic weapon to make it shoot as fast as an automatic weapon. It's what the shooter in Las Vegas last year used.

Luckily, it looks like there is a chance to get those restricted/removed/outlawed/etc. since the NRA apparently doesn't sell very many of them and is looking for some good PR with a token effort.

Ah finally some evidence...too bad JDJacket and LDSman brought things up as well as brought other studies, that you haven't even addressed while JDJacket addressed your source. But perhaps later you bring up some evidence or address someone else's points against your evidence, oh my bad, I mean Points. Evidence is stuff to be used to support a point, and if it's in jeapordy or proven not to support your point alone, then it isn't evidence to a beneficial degree.

but the next part I'm sure, oh wait we get to your little "dark joke" that I address....okay, so out of all that from what I see as of least 5 responses prior to the one I addressed and your latest one, only 2 have had anything remotely evidencesk, and one was merely news and the other was addressed by others.

Oh wait, actually there was something you brought up, in your latest comment no less.

The evidence is all the dead people at the hands of gun violence.

……………
are you starting to see what I mean? Look I have no problem with you wanting gun control. I have no problem with you hating shootings like you do. I don't like them either. I know I've been sounding like a jerk in this, but that's because I'm honestly running out of ways to explain to you that what you are giving isn't sufficient or has been dealt with by others. Plus, you could try to refute the claims and sources given by others.

If you read this far down, know I have no malicious or condescending feelings towards you. I think everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion as it is said at the top of the debate screen. If anything I have said in this comment is wrong or you notice something, I'd be fine talking it over. But when I say, "I think you're hellbent" I think you are just here so that others will agree. This was evident later in the thread where you regret making it. A proper discussion and debate was happening, and yet you regret making it. Like...do you even care to debate with the peeps here?

Opinions and whatnot are fine, but when you argue policy and facts you need to play by those rules. You can't just trust the words of the dead, you need to show the numbers. You can't just recount or say some instances you remember, you need to show a pattern that supports what you say. You can't just show a thing to bolster your point that is eventually refuted and still count it.

Look, I want you to better yourself at doing this and being able to bolster your points. However, the big issue I have isn't with your opinion, but your lack of wanting to listen to the other sides or understand their sources and things provided. Listening and analyzing doesn't mean agreeing and to everyone that has the mindset, "I'll never change my mind on this," I honestly think is an unhealthy thing to have. You want to believe in something true right? Something that is beneficial and proper?

Well tell me then (this is an example not related to the debate)
If you have an opinion on a course of action and all the facts point to the other course of action yet you still say that "this course of action is what we need and is better" then I'm sorry...but that's not how it works. I have opinions that go against what facts say sometimes and to that I need to be real. Same for everyone. You don't need to change your opinion, but if you are going to argue the point's validity you need to support it. You need to show that this is something we do need to do and illustrate how it is indeed the right or better choice. If not, then don't be surprised if people laugh in your face or say "facts not feelings" or whatnot.

The thing is feelings are important, but when it comes to policy and national affecting rules, then you need to debate on this. The gun debate isn't a debate about morality...it's about a debate regarding stopping/minimizing deaths related to mash shootings and possibly other criteria. It honestly annoys me that people think that because you disagree with a notion, that means you can plant your feet in the ground and not even try to understand or see the other perspective. I don't accuse anyone of doing this, but it honestly needs to be put out that if you are going to debate, you need to be able to have a more objective view.

One more thing, even if I was the scummiest thing ever, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Even if I go against what I say that doesn't mean what I say is wrong. In this debate you address the argument, not the debater. I say, Esper and everyone here can make good points; it doesn't matter who makes them or whatnot. I look forward to your growth in this Esper as well as this debate to be continued (or concluded) in a civil manner.

I wish you well

 

[Esper]

There was something in that tl;dr post about the need to have sources and evidence. Here's some that show there's more gun deaths (homicide or otherwise) per capita in the USA compared to other developed countries.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

And some that show how prevalence of guns has a corresponding effect on gun deaths. a.k.a. more guns, more gun deaths.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

i don't think that his problem is so much your tone or presentation as it is your refusal to engage in discussion on the topic beyond " but look at all the dead people tho"

but look at all the dead people tho

 

[Vragon2.0]

snip snip

Cool, glad you brought some sources and that. I'll sit this one out and all and see how everyone goes, though I will say that "look at all the dead people tho" needs to at least take into consideration other factors. I'd have to review your charts for myself and whatnot, but eh.

Thanks for providing these things and all.

 

[gimmepie]

Cool, glad you brought some sources and that. I'll sit this one out and all and see how everyone goes, though I will say that "look at all the dead people tho" needs to at least take into consideration other factors. I'd have to review your charts for myself and whatnot, but eh.

Thanks for providing these things and all.

What other factors? It's a simple question of "does increased access to firearms increase the likelihood of death by firearm."

Yes. Having more guns around absolutely will increase the odds of people dying via gun.

 

[Nah]

some things in life are not as simple as one would like to believe

Something to keep in mind is that the USA has the 3rd largest population in the world. Last I checked it's at about 320 million people right now. Canada? The UK? Australia? Finland? All have a fraction of the population of the United States. We have states that are as big or bigger than, either in geographic size, population, or both, some countries in the world.

If you look at the FBI's database, you'll see that California has the most homicides of all the states in this country (majority of those committed with a gun). California is also one of the states in the country with, iirc, strictest gun laws. But it wouldn't really be correct to simply say that "oh gun laws don't work because California" either, as the high number of homicides is likely more of a factor of California's massive population (more than 30 million people live in that state, and it's the most populous state in the nation).

So naturally because of the massive population, there's going to be more of....basically everything. A bigger bag of skittles is almost certainly going to have more of each color than a smaller bag of skittles.

Then there's the matter of what kinds of gun laws should be put into place that the US doesn't have already? And then actually enforcing these laws (at least one of the televised shootings in the past year was committed by someone who under U.S. law never should have been able to buy them in the first place). On top of that, how do you get our government to do literally anything at all about the problem (as they seem to not be interested in pursuing any proposed solution presented by any side of this)? What about crime?

And then, ultimately the better (but much more difficult) solution is to get people to not want to murder each other to begin with.

 

[BronzeHeart92]

Call it values dissonance but it's indeed my humble opinion that Americans are taking freedom too far. How is it that we Europeans won't need gun laws like yours? Well, we do place a great value on freedom but at the same time it's important to know which rights to grant to people in first place. Is restricting certain freedoms for the benefit of collective whole something you can't wrap your heads around?

 

[gimmepie]

some things in life are not as simple as one would like to believe

Something to keep in mind is that the USA has the 3rd largest population in the world. Last I checked it's at about 320 million people right now. Canada? The UK? Australia? Finland? All have a fraction of the population of the United States. We have states that are as big or bigger than, either in geographic size, population, or both, some countries in the world.

If you look at the FBI's database, you'll see that California has the most homicides of all the states in this country (majority of those committed with a gun). California is also one of the states in the country with, iirc, strictest gun laws. But it wouldn't really be correct to simply say that "oh gun laws don't work because California" either, as the high number of homicides is likely more of a factor of California's massive population (more than 30 million people live in that state, and it's the most populous state in the nation).

So naturally because of the massive population, there's going to be more of....basically everything. A bigger bag of skittles is almost certainly going to have more of each color than a smaller bag of skittles.

Then there's the matter of what kinds of gun laws should be put into place that the US doesn't have already? And then actually enforcing these laws (at least one of the televised shootings in the past year was committed by someone who under U.S. law never should have been able to buy them in the first place). On top of that, how do you get our government to do literally anything at all about the problem (as they seem to not be interested in pursuing any proposed solution presented by any side of this)? What about crime?

And then, ultimately the better (but much more difficult) solution is to get people to not want to murder each other to begin with.

You do make good points but, I fail to see how having less guns available doesn't result in less death - by accident or intent - via guns despite this. On top of that, the theory breaks down when you look at New York compared to say, Chicago. New York is several times larger than Chicago but has less violent crime. Sydney is bigger than every US city by some margin, New York excluded, and has much less gun violence. Size doesn't necessarily mean more violence. However, less access to firearms will always mean a reduction in gun deaths.

 

[Nah]

You do make good points but, I fail to see how having less guns available doesn't result in less death - by accident or intent - via guns despite this. On top of that, the theory breaks down when you look at New York compared to say, Chicago. New York is several times larger than Chicago but has less violent crime. Sydney is bigger than every US city by some margin, New York excluded, and has much less gun violence. Size doesn't necessarily mean more violence. However, less access to firearms will always mean a reduction in gun deaths.

The point I was trying to make wasn't really about (population) size, but rather just what I said in the first sentence--that I think that this issue and it's solution(s) are not as simple as anyone wants to believe.

It kind of seems that (some) people think that all that has to happen is that the US passes more gun-related legislation (and again, what specifically is needed?) and in like a year or two we'll all be sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories about The Scary Days When People Got Killed By Guns in America. But is that really enough? To go back to the example of New York/Chicago/Sydney, ok, sure, New York and Sydney are bigger than Chicago but have less violent crime. But the reason really just as simple as and only due to a difference in gun laws and/or gun ownership? Does the potential really not exist for there to be other factors that may, at least in part, explain the difference?

And regarding "less guns available", what's the plan for dealing with all the ones legally owned in the country? What about already illegally made and purchased guns?